narutofandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Chakra Rosary
Natures Where is it said that the black orbs are made up of all natures? • Seelentau 愛 議 17:42, January 28, 2015 (UTC) :being the exact same and doing the exact same, I would guess that they are made out of the same.. But I could be wrong... I don't even care anymore to be honest.--Omojuze (talk) 17:57, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::Who says that they are the same, though? • Seelentau 愛 議 18:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC) :::They aren't, they just look same and even function same, so they could have all natures just like TSB, we are not sure what they exactly are we can't tell whether they are Truth-Seeking Ball or not with current information, except we just know the name and its usage.--Naruto uzu6254 (talk) 18:08, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::::@Tau by "the same" i meant they are both "black balls"... lolz--Omojuze (talk) 18:08, January 28, 2015 (UTC) :::::Where did the name come from?--Kuroiraikou (talk) 18:11, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Thread:159828#34.--Naruto uzu6254 (talk) 18:15, January 28, 2015 (UTC) :::::::Also, isn't Hamura a user of this, instead of this?--Omojuze (talk) 18:17, January 28, 2015 (UTC) Jesus, they work exactly the same as TSB. Let's just add chakra rosary as another name for TSB and save us the headache. After all, movie novel isn't exactly high up the canon ladder.--[[User:Elveonora|'Elve']] Talk Page| 18:28, January 28, 2015 (UTC) :YES, please... Please!..--Omojuze (talk) 18:33, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm all for that.--Kuroiraikou (talk) 18:39, January 28, 2015 (UTC) Deletion Feel free to argue it out amongst yourselves. Munchvtec (talk) 07:57, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :The name "Chakra Rosary" is already used in Truth-Seeking Balls. So I really don't see reason for this article to stay. I say delete. --JouXIII (talk) 08:17, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::If it's a derived technique, I don't see a problem with it staying.--Hawkeye2701 (talk) 09:01, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :::It's not. It works exactly like TSB. Chakra Rosary is simply second name to TSB. --JouXIII (talk) 09:40, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::::I also see no point in keeping this article, although I think Toneri's usage of the TSB should be extented for a bit in the original TSB article cause some of his ways to use them weren't the ordinary ones (i.e. infusing TSB with chakra, splitting them into smaller balls, their use for Reincarnation Wheel techniques etc). Ravenlot 27 (talk) 11:28, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :::::I agree with this suggestion. --JouXIII (talk) 11:44, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::::::It's a named derived technique which has shown different functions to it's parent technique, moulding into metal and duplicating themselves. So no, it's not practically the same as it's parent technique. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 05:12, March 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Again, Chakra Rosary is just another name for Truth-Seeking Balls(like Black WeaponsBuki) and is already mentioned in the TSB-article. A simple expansion on TSB-article would be enough. --JouXIII (talk) 12:36, March 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::If it's a named technique, which the trivia section seems to suggest that it is, then why would we delete the page? --SuperSajuuk (talk) 13:09, March 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::Because the editor who made this article claimed that these two techniques were named in the Boruto-novel, when in fact they were just descriptions of elements launched by KinMomoshiki. Frankly, I see Chakra Rosary being same: description of nature of TSB, rosary made of Chakra. ::::::::: So really, simple expansion on TSB-article would be more than enough, not entire article. --JouXIII (talk) 13:21, March 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::::The whole basis of this deletion is because it's similar to it's parent technique. But that's literally the case with nearly all parent and derived techniques. The only thing that makes a derived technique have it's own article if it's either named or differs in function. This technique is both. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 13:33, March 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::::Again, simple exapansion in the TSB-article would be enough, something like: :::::::::::"Toneri, while using Tenseigan Chakra Mode, can enhance his Truth-Seeking Balls by imbuing the chakra of Tenseigan Chakra Mode." :::::::::::I sincerly see no reason for this article to exist, even less when its maker thought that descriptions of elements were names of techniques and claming that name of video game-only technique was used in the novel while in fact it wasn't there at all. --JouXIII (talk) 14:11, March 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::::::It's different enough to warrant it's own article and it's done like this throughout the wiki. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 15:08, March 19, 2016 (UTC) :Different enough? Hardly. :Golden Wheel Reincrnation Explosion=Sword of Nunoboko. :Silver Wheel Reincrnation Explosion=Any time TSB is used for defense. :Cage=Six Red Yang Formation. :Heck, even in manga Obito's TSB was glowing when it was about to explode. :So yeah, I would hardly call it different enough. --JouXIII (talk) 15:35, March 19, 2016 (UTC) ::JouXIII, you should note that if the deletion happens (which the chances of happening are close to zero), then I expect you to retroactively apply this logic to every other "derivative technique" on the wiki and call for their deletion under the same reason. And I expect that there will be resistance to such a movement. So be aware of what the outcome of this could mean for the wiki (which would be the removal of a lot of pertinent information). --SuperSajuuk (talk) 18:31, March 19, 2016 (UTC) :::What I try to say here is that this article claims that Truth-Seeking Balls enhanced with power of Tenseigan Chakra Mode is called "Chakra Rosary", when in fact that's not the case. Chakra Rosary is simply alternative name to TSB, just like Rinnegan has alternative name of "the Eye of Six Paths". That is my problem here. :::Seriously, if technique enhanced by other source of power is enough to warrant article, by that logic Flapping Chidori and Dark Chidori should have their own articles. But since they don't have, I don't see why this should have article. :::Again, what Toneri is doing is simply powering up TSB with TGCM, something that can be simply expanded on TSB-article. --JouXIII (talk) 19:16, March 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::Then argue that those chirdori techniques have their own articles; as they should. It's just a matter of people not wanting to make them. Since this page is already made, users won't really argue against it. I have no issue with it staying as is. Where is your proof that "Chakra Rosary" is just an alternative name? Munchvtec (talk) 01:07, March 20, 2016 (UTC) :::::Considering that Cheopz19 has already falsely claimed that these two techniques are "ancient Ōtsutsuki techniques", when in fact nothing like that was ever said in the novel, makes this article's credibility pretty questionable. I actually asked Cheopz19 credible sources, but he/she didn't answered me, so I had to check myself. --JouXIII (talk) 02:00, March 20, 2016 (UTC) ::::::Noting that "Chakra Rosary" sounds more like a description than a technique name. But the term definitely exists in the novel, from what I know. Carry on. • Seelentau 愛 議 02:04, March 20, 2016 (UTC) :::::::That is what I'm trying to say. --JouXIII (talk) 02:11, March 20, 2016 (UTC) Shall the Deletion tag be taken down now? Not much more to say. Munchvtec (talk) 01:22, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :As long as whole article is deleted, sure. --JouXIII (talk) 01:27, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::Of course you'd say that :p Majority says the article remains, no? Munchvtec (talk) 01:30, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::Doesn't change the fact that this article is pointless and Toneri's use of TSB could simply be expanded on TSB-article. Beside, I thought we were suppose to present accurate information here, not fanon. --JouXIII (talk) 01:55, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::oh you see fanon. *looks around* where? Munchvtec (talk) 02:04, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::In the claim that enhanced version of TSB(which, again, can simply expanded on TSB-article) is called Chakra Rosary, when in fact CR is just another descriptive name to TSB, like Black Weapons. --JouXIII (talk) 02:16, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::All derived techniques are enhanced in some way, as the normal TSB hasn't been shown capable of converting into metal, duplicate themselves etc. And Seel acknowledge that it sounded like a description, not say it is 1. The same can be said about Heavenly Punishment sounding like a term. Also, trying to discredited this articles existence because of the user who created it, isn't going to get the article deleted, nor is calling it fanon. If a bunch of people support it being deleted, i'll live with myself, but as is, just seems like 1 vocal user has an issue with it. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 06:19, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::::So now people can publish all kinds of crap under the claim that "it's from novel lol" without anyone bothering to check the credibility of the claim? I'm sincerely disappointed. --JouXIII (talk) 11:15, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::I'm not sure why there's such a big issue over this. It's named in the novel and deserves an article. Consider assuming good faith in editor contributions. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 11:45, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::Term "chakra rosary" is used in novel, true. Just not as actual name of technique but as description. Also, it's quite hard to have "good faith" on Cheopz19 when he/she has already false claims under his/her record. :::::::::Again, since chakra rosary is already mentioned in TSB-article, it's more simple to expand it there in Toneri's section, instead of this waste of space. :::::::::Honestly, if Snapper would be still around, this article would already be gone. --JouXIII (talk) 11:57, March 21, 2016 (UTC) And that's one of the reasons snapper left. If you can prove your claim that it's fanon then it gets deleted. If not, then let it be until someone does. Munchvtec (talk) 12:30, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :Read the "Natures"-discussion + this. --JouXIII (talk) 13:41, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::Well then, was that hard? :p If @suzaku says so then i guess it's correct. I'd be fine if it remained as we have plenty of articles with describing names (heck, every technique name is essentially a description). Though if it was to be deleted, i wouldn't shed too many tears. Munchvtec (talk) 13:54, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::Well you know Seel said it could be a description, meaning that it could also be a name. If he comes here again and says this article should be deleted, then im fine with it, but in the meantime, as long as chakra rosery could be a name, im against the deletion. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 14:01, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::After bit of research, I found The Last: Naruto the Movie-novel downloaded as raw. And what I found in pages 197-198? :::: ::::Here are the pages in question. ::::Again, not a name, description. --JouXIII (talk) 14:47, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::Well, I never bothered to check my copy of the novel (if I even have one, can't remember). But if what Jou quoted is the only time the rosary thing is mentioned, then it's more than obviously a description. Suzakun himself said so, too and it's also really comparable to the black weapon term we used before we got the TSB name. So go ahead and move the contents to the TSB page, this one will be deleted whenever. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:47, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Alright. *EDIT* Done. --JouXIII (talk) 17:37, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :So because Tau just posts here with an opinion that matches what you wanted to hear, that's the decision? Come on, we don't need any more Snapper2's making arbitrary decisions, one user does not make a decision. Jesus this wiki needs a lesson in how to form a consensus properly. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 17:38, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::I count 4 people that is fine with deletion of this article. I would say that's more than 1 user. --JouXIII (talk) 17:50, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::Discounting your obvious support for removing this page, I counted 2 people to support in deleting and more than 2 who opposed removing. Unless I'm missing something, that is a majority for keeping the page, not just doing whatever you feel like doing and ignoring other users. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 17:55, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Me excluding, I see Tau, Saru, Raven and Munch are fine with deletion of the article, while you and Hawkeye seems to be against it. I have shown my evidence. The discussion above and Suzaku's translation supports it. --JouXIII (talk) 18:12, March 21, 2016 (UTC) as long as chakra rosery could be a name, im against the deletion. The majority of users wanted to keep the article for the sole reason of them thinking "Chakra Rosary" was an official name. Now that it is proven that it isn't an official name, there is no reason to keep it up. And as you have said multiple times in your time on this wiki, the wiki does not operate on a "vote-by-consensus" policy. Discussions are not votes. Therefore, counting how many support and how many oppose is irrelevant. Not to mention, through Jou's translation, this article already uses an incorrect translation, incorrect romaji, and incorrect kanji, so the article name also borders along the lines of false information. 18:18, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :Windy, it does not apply here. You cannot seriously be suggesting that members can just be blatantly ignored if it's not what the user wants to hear, that's just ignoring consensus. There are users here who do not support removing the page and they should not just be ignored for any reason. :I find it even more hilarious how you specifically went to find something I said so that it can be used to nullify my opinion. My opinion back then applied at that time because there was a lot of editors on the wiki. But there is 'not ' "a lot of editors on the wiki" now and so it's reasonable that anyone who opposes a deletion should not be blatantly ignored in a discussion. :But it is clear to me nobody seems to give a shit for other people's opinions any more: it's either "my opinion or piss off" nowadays. Just shows how people don't care about what people think now. :D :Let me know when y'all get a paycheck for making this the official Naruto Wiki and then I might encourage ignoring user opinions. :D --SuperSajuuk (talk) 18:42, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::I didn't post an opinion in my second post, though... I mean, this wiki isn't about opinions, this isn't a democracy, we have set rules and guidelines for articles and as multiple users said, this is no valid article. It's the same as Vanishing Rasengan and Black Weapons, really. But then again, I'm a sysop, so whenever I enforce something, I abuse my powers, hm^^ • Seelentau 愛 議 18:44, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::No, this is a community run wiki and therefore, the opinions of other users is important. Everyone is considered to be equal, simply dismissing people's opinions for no reason is just stupid. :::If this gets deleted, then just about every other article that follows the same format as this should be deleted for exactly the same reason. Logical, is it not? :::This isn't Wikipedia. There is no need to go around deleting every possible thing that is "not named". If there is something mentioned in any Naruto medium, such as games, novels, anime, manga etc, that is notable, then it gets a page here. I thought that was the basis of the Narutopedia being created in the first place: clearly I'm mistaken and I've spent 6-7 years here being misled by everyone. --SuperSajuuk (talk) 18:50, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::So just because it is unnamed, we should delete it? That is absurd. Here comes that bs "unnamed articles should go" thing again. --Rai 水 (talk) 18:54, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::::::"Chakra Rosary" was already mentioned in the TSB-article before Cheopz19 for some reason decided to make this article, though. So really, there was never need to make this article, simple expansion on TSB-article would have been enough. --JouXIII (talk) 18:57, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::Again, this is not about opinions. They literally do not matter here. This is the same case as the Vanishing Rasengan: An article was created unter the false belief that there was a new name for a new technique, but it turned out to be just a description for a specific and new way of using an already named technique. It's the same here and the same course of action will be applied. Unnamed articles should be kept to a minimum. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:59, March 21, 2016 (UTC) Not deleting it because its unnamed, but because the name itself is false (along with the kanji and romaji), and not that different from an article we already have. I don't have a problem with articles with conjectural titles. Not applying this to this situation or any specific situation on this wiki, but 10 people who are in the wrong (again, not referring to any specific situation, but in general) should not supersede five who are in the right. But it seems everyone gets mad when stuff gets deleted, so shrugs. ^^ 19:02, March 21, 2016 (UTC)